Well all the nhs problems are down to women apparently(72 Posts)
Dm link coming up....
Especially those pesky intelligent women who train for years at the taxpayers expense and then become gps, have children and go part time.
What gives me rage about this is the way it is presented ther women have children by some form of immaculate conception or that asexual reproduction that plants do, not that women have children with men who actually need to step up to their child care responsibilities so that 'woman going part time after children' is not the default automatic option.
My dentist is also a woman NiceTabard. Running a practice entirely on her own, in an extremely deprived area, with a high percentage of every social issue you can imagine. But she has one afternoon off a week. The fucking slag.
I think that's his point, Joining, he's just not very honest about it!
The answer is to stop educating girls then surely - and sop encouraging ambition - they will only go off and have babies wont they?
I notice that the stats for obstetrics weren't included in the DM article. Wonder why.
I think that morally the fact that we, as one of the richest nations on earth, employ huge numbers of doctors and nurses that have been trained in much poorer nations, is a bigger dilemma than training people who go part time for a few years.
Also what about the doctors that train here then go overseas to practice permenantly (an increasingly common scenario), those who work abroad for a few years, those who do charity work in developing countries, those who train for long spells in specialities which they end up switching from (training positions cost the NHS money never mind the fact that someone else could have had the job). These are all sources of wasted money in terms of 'man' hours worked in return for training. Also private practise as mentioned above.
Funny how it's easier to target women who work PT for a few years of their career than look at the bigger picture. Even although PT workers are paid for the hours they work and no more, pay their taxes to HMRC even while working PT (and on maternity leave) and often (especially if self-employed/locum) spend considerable amounts of their own money and time keeping up-to-date with current UK practice.
Goodwill amongst GPs is fast running out. There is a recruitment crisis looming in England (unfortunately not where I work!). This sort of negative misgynistic crap would not induce me to work a single shift more than I absolutely had too - the main thing which motivates me to help out in OOH at short notice and stretch myself to cover anti social periods (Boxing night shift anyone? Followed by Hogmanay and New Year's Day?) is that I don't want my colleagues to be shafted and I don't particularly want patients to receive a suboptimal service either.
Would there be anything so very wrong with training MORE doctors, so that we are not left with too few if some (men and women) work fewer hours? There are plenty of would be medics out there desperate for the limited places currently availably...
Anyway, now that youngsters are set to work to near 70, the years they are PT with DC will be a small proportion of their working lives. Attrition for other reasons, which will apply equally to both genders, is more likely.
Another unrepentant female PT GP checking in.
Haven't read the article and won't be doing so for the sake of my blood pressure.
I work PT for the reason potatoprints describes. If I were FT it would be as a locum where reputation is everything. Cancelling surgeries at the last minute due to sick children is the road to ruin. There are very very few salaried jobs or partnerships advertised round here anyway. And no my DH can't drop everything either for similar reasons.
Expecting 17 year olds to decide that they will work FT and employ a nanny so they can apply to medicine is beyond ridiculous. Now medical students are paying hefty fees for 5 years I'm not particularly sure they owe society anything much anyway. They will almost always be employed and paying back their student loans.
Traditionally there are people in every medical year who go into medical law, the City, just can't hack medicine and the realities of the job. If I were a patient attending a teaching hospital and agreed to examination by a student, it would be in the hope that they went on to practice clinical medicine. Having an internal so someone could get their degree then do something else entirely would feel much more of a cheat than someone who went on to practise PT.
I know in teaching women generally have to be better than any male candidate because we need more men in education. I wonder if there is a bias towards women in this way elsewhere?
YY wonderstuff and grimbletart. It's that low-level persistent misogyny that goes unnoticed by many because they don't even acknowledge (or realise) that male is default so everything else needs to be questioned.
Yes wonderstuff - your last sentence. We are always reading about professions becoming 'feminised', whether it's medicine, teaching, the BBC etc. with the unspoken insinuation that this is a bad thing and masculine is the default. And often, e.g. the BBC, it is far less than 50% of the jobs that have gone to women despite us being 51% of the population. Yet has anyone ever heard of something becoming 'masculinised'?
I'm sure a large number of female doctors don't actually have children at all. How on earth would he judge which medical school candidates would pay back there training debt to society?
The answer to more gender balance in the workplace has to be more men working part time rather than fewer women taking up important jobs in the first instance.
I find it interesting that as soon as a profession becomes female dominated we worry, yet male dominated professions are not seen as as troublesome.
"Maybe that is because we talk ourselves down?" Not sure about that. I think media and men with privilege can talk women down quite happily without being encouraged by us. lunar1's DH is quite happy for one woman's maternity leave and the problems it's caused (which in the main have not been caused by her) to cloud his entire opinion of women. I doubt a man whose actions had caused problems would cause him to rethink about employing men. He has basically devalued women based on the actions of his HR department. That's male privilege for you though.
Sometimes intelligent people can be astonishingly dim. Prof Meirion Thomas hasn't done much thinking about this at all, has he? Has he not noticed that traditionally many male consultants work part-time so they can do private practice?
He's got a nasty attitude to general practice as well, sneering at them that they aren't hospital doctors. I'd like to see him cope with the average GP's day - diagnostic uncertainty is much greater for them than for him, because the GP has already weeded out patients who don't need to see him.
And of course he's got a fecking outrageous attitude to women, and hasn't stopped to consider any of the structural issues that cause women to be side-lined. Oh, what a hero he is, sitting on fecking committees.
I also think devaluation of GPs has something to do with the increased idea of our "rights". Doctor as God has gone and that is a good thing, but I was horrified a couple of months ago when I was sitting waiting for my DH in the doctor's surgery to see there was a notice saying that there had been 240 'no shows' for GP appointments in the previous month. That is outrageous - patients basically arrogantly saying that their time is much more valuable than their doctor's time and that they couldn't even be arsed to pick up the phone and say they couldn't come.
Yyy, jobs that are done by women start to become devalued. Maybe that is because we talk ourselves down?
I wonder if this devaluation of GPs has arisen, in part, because more and more women have entered that sphere (in a similar manner to those jobs where salaries decrease as women enter that particular workplace).
The article falls down on so many levels, including that male GPs are also going part time, retiring early or emigrating (as I've just done). As Pacfic Dogwood said, being a full time GP in the UK is being on the path to burn out. There used to be an element of goodwill, where doctors would go above and beyond because they felt valued, now it's day in day out criticism in the media, reduced autonomy, tick box medicine and arse covering and the good will is all but gone. The medical workforce (like any workforce) will work hardest when it's valued.
Morethanpotatoprints "My only objection tbh is having too many appointments cancelled because the nurse or doctor had to go home to their sick child.
My appointment is more important than a sick child who should be looked after by somebody else. Male or Female, I couldn't give a shit."
A child only has one mum and dad to comfort them when they're unwell. A patient can see any doctor if it's urgent, or wait for their preferred doctor if it isn't. I don't think your appointment is more important than a parent being with their sick child. And I'm not a parent!
So why not give "parental leave" that can be split equally between mothers and fathers as in many other countries?
Paternity leave should be compulsory. Women tend to only give birth once in a year (excluding multiple births) and only 2 - 3 times in total.
Reading your first post, then, lunar, she shouldn't have changed her return date from 4 months when baby was 3 months, as that was only 4-5 weeks notice of the change.
If she breached the law and HR chose not to pull her up on it, that's more to do with the individual case than with maternity rights and how they pertain to doctors. I really hope your husband wouldn't take against another female consultant for this reason, any more than he'd take against another male consultant if the last one he worked with always knocked off early or threw sickies.
But it has to be based on the law regardless of speciality etc.
My understanding, though I'm not a lawyer or GR person, of why the notice of a change of date was changed from 4 weeks to 8 was that the presumption would be that maternity cover would be hired for a year, as that is the "default", and then 8 weeks' notice would enable reasonable "early" notice to be given to the maternity cover.
In practice, many employers don't hire maternity cover in this way of course.
I think that just enough notice was given on each occasion apart from one extension which was a couple of days late. Hr were pretty useless though, and they couldn't really force her to come back anyway. I think the rules should have been that unless there is a dramatic change of circumstance you can only make one change to return date.
In a large speciality it wouldn't have mattered as much as there would be more staff to share the work load and more consultants generally that are available for locum work.
Given DH and I are so busy with kids and work, we all just take an appointment with whichever GP is available at any time that is vaguely convenient.
The hardest GP in our practice to get an appointment with is male - because he's the practice owner, has been there the longest and has a particular speciality that means he's always booked out weeks ahead. Shall I go and kick him?
Lunar, the laws on mat leave are that it's assumed 12 months will be taken unless at least 8 weeks' notice is given of an alternative return date, and if that date changes subsequently, again, at least 8weeks' notice is required. It doesn't sound like that was adhered to by her or by HR.
Morethan, have you never had to leave work to pick up a sick child?
Incidentally I haven't ever had a appt cancelled due to childcare stuff.
Things have been cancelled due to admin cock-ups (when I was pg, happened a lot, and they never told me in advance grr), or "unforeseen circumstances" or similar.
Thinking about it, when a teacher isn't there or an orthoptist, they don't go into detail why. I am surprised your GP surgery shares info that personal about the doctors. It wouldn't happen around here - may be a thing that differs between areas I guess.
Join the discussion
Please login first.